- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:53:18 +0100
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- CC: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>, Makx Dekkers <makx@makxdekkers.com>, public-gld-comments@w3.org
True Raphaël. LC can be as short as 3 weeks (from the date of publication of the doc/announcement to relevant WGs etc.) On 06/04/2013 10:28, Raphaël Troncy wrote: > Dear all, > >> "Ideally, after a Last Call announcement, a Working Group receives only >> indications of support for the document, with no proposals for >> substantive change. In practice, Last Call announcements generate >> comments that sometimes result in substantive changes to a document. A >> Working Group SHOULD NOT assume that it has finished its work by virtue >> of issuing a Last Call announcement." >> >> In other words, if LC comments lead to changes that would cause an >> existing implementation to break, you need to do another LC cycle. > > Yes, but the 2nd LC period can be short (this is what we did in previous > WG I have participated or chaired such as the Media Fragments WG). From > my point of view, this is still better to do the change now, than > waiting for CR where someone will object and go back to LC. > I'm in favor of Phil's option 1., delete dcat:xxx and replace it with > dcat:hasXxx. > Best regards. > > Raphaël > -- Phil Archer W3C eGovernment http://www.w3.org/egov/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2013 09:53:43 UTC